ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load
Joachim Wirth a,*, Josef Knsting b, Detlev Leutner c
a
Ruhr-University Bochum, Department of Research on Learning and Instruction, 44780 Bochum, Germany
b
University of Kassel, Mnchebergstrae 21a, 34109 Kassel, Germany
c
Duisburg-Essen University, Department of Instructional Psychology, 45117 Essen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Two hundred and thirty three 15-year old students conducted experiments within a computer-based
Cognitive load learning environment. They were provided with different goals according to an experimental 2  2
Discovery learning design with goal specicity (nonspecic goals versus specic goals) and goal type (problem solving goals
Goal specicity versus learning goals) as factors. We replicated the ndings of other researchers that nonspecic problem
Computer-based learning environment
solving goals lead to lower cognitive load and better learning than specic problem solving goals. For
learning goals, however, we observed this goal specicity effect only on cognitive load but not on learning
outcome. Results indicate that the goal specicity affects the element interactivity of a task and cognitive
load with both, problem solving goals or learning goals. But differences in overall cognitive load are not
sufcient for explaining differences in learning outcome. Additionally, differences in strategy use come
into play. Specic problem solving goals seem to restrict students to use a problem solving strategy
whereas nonspecic problem solving goals or learning goals allow students to use a learning strategy.
We conclude that in order to foster learning, students must be provided with goals that allow them to
use a learning strategy. Additionally, providing them with nonspecic goals decreases cognitive load
and, thus, enables students to learn with less effort.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of nonspecic problem solving goals as well as goal-free problems

Solving problems without a specically dened goal leads to
higher learning outcomes (schema acquisition) than solving prob-
lems with a specically dened goal, usually stated as a specic
problem state that has to be reached. A high goal specicity leads
to low schema acquisition or rule induction. This phenomenon is
called the goal specicity effect and has been observed with
various kinds of problems such as maze problems (Paas, Camp, &
Rikers, 2001; Sweller & Levine, 1982), trigonometry problems
(Owen & Sweller, 1985), geometry problem (Bobis, Sweller, &
Cooper, 1994), arithmetic problems (Sweller, Mawer, & Howe,
1982), kinematic problems (Sweller, Mawer, & Ward, 1983), or
even complex and dynamic problems (Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002;
Miller, Lehman, & Kdinger, 1999). In studies investigating the goal
specicity effect there is usually a condition with one or more
specic problem solving goals (well-dened; cf., Drner & Wear-
ing, 1995) that is compared with a condition with nonspecic
problem solving goals (ill-dened), or even with a condition with
no problem solving goal at all (goal-free).
Summarizing the results of this kind of research on the goal
specicity effect can lead to the assumption that the advantage
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 (0)234 32 28728; fax: +49 (0)234 32 14491.
E-mail address: joachim.wirth@rub.de (J. Wirth).
over specic problem solving goals is that they allow problem solv-
ers for more or less consciously pursuing a learning goal (e.g., rule
induction or schema acquisition; Sweller, 1983; Sweller et al.,
1982), whereas specic problem solving goals restrict problem
solvers to pursue the specic problem solving goal only, that is
without pursuing any learning goals. This assumption implies that
problem solving goals differ substantially from learning goals. And
indeed, these two types of goals can be distinguished, for example,
according to whether they dene an internal or an external goal
state (Klauer, 1988). Problem solving goals are more or less well-
dened states of a problem solvers external environment, and solv-
ing the problem requires transforming some specic aspects of a
problem solvers external environment in order to reach the exter-
nal environmental goal state (cf., Klauer, 1988; Schwonke et al.,
this issue; Sweller & Levine, 1982). For example, when solving a
maze problem with a specically described exit of the maze envi-
ronment (a specic problem solving goal), the problem is to be
solved by carrying an object (e.g., a grey square on a computer
screen, Paas et al., 2001, or a problem solvers index nger, Sweller
& Levine, 1982) from its initial position to the exit position. The
problem solving goal is achieved with success as soon as the object
is in the exit position of the maze environment independent of
what a problem solver has learned about the structure of the maze
environment. In contrast to problem solving goals, learning goals

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004

Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 J. Wirth et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx
are more or less well-dened internal mental states of a learners
knowledge, and learning requires modifying a learners knowledge
structure in long-term memory in order to reach the internal men-
tal goal state. With respect to the maze problem example, this
means that learners try to learn (by doing) how to move an object
out of the maze environment (schema acquisition and/or rule
induction). The learning goal is achieved with success as soon as
a learner has acquired sufcient knowledge about the structure
of the maze so that, on later occasions, the learner can move an ob-
ject to the exit by using the acquired maze schema indepen-
dently from the specic positions a learner has moved the object
during the learning process.
Low specicity of a problem solving goal seems to allow chang-
ing the problem solving goal into a goal of different quality, that is,
into a learning goal. But what if a person is not provided with a
problem solving goal but, instead, with a learning goal? In that
case, the question comes up whether goal specicity also affects
learning or whether the goal specicity effect is restricted to prob-
lem solving goals. Since the goal specicity effect is well docu-
mented for problem solving goals there is, to our knowledge, no
empirical study yet where the specicity of learning goals is varied
and the effect on learning and/or problem solving is observed.
In the literature, there exist two main approaches to explaining
the goal specicity effect of problem solving goals, that we will call
the strategy approach and the cognitive load approach. In the
following, we will describe these two approaches, and we will dis-
cuss if and how these approaches can be generalized to learning
goals. Afterwards, we will report on the present study investigating
the goal specicity effect on learning and cognitive load for both
problem solving goals and learning goals.
1.1. The strategy approach
This approach explains the goal specicity effect by different
strategies problem solvers use when provided with a specic ver-
sus a nonspecic problem solving goal and without any explicit
additional instruction to learn (e.g., Sweller, 1988; Sweller &
Levine, 1982; Sweller et al., 1982). It is assumed that the major
mechanism problem solvers employ when provided with a specic
goal is means-ends analysis (Newell & Simon, 1972). That is, having
a specic goal in mind problem solvers analyze the current prob-
lem state concerning ways of how to transform the current state
into the specic goal state or at least into a state with a smaller
distance to the goal state. Previous moves that led to the current
problem state are not relevant for this kind of analysis. Therefore,
problem solvers using means-ends analysis are unlikely to induce
rules or to identify the structure of the problem, e.g., by inferring
from previous moves to possible moves for the current state. Of
course, the use of means-ends analysis does not exclude the
possibility of learning. But learning is not necessary if at all,
learning would be incidental. Thus, means-ends analysis has to
be considered as a pure problem solving strategy.
In contrast, when provided with a nonspecic goal, or even un-
der a no-goal condition, problem solvers cannot use means-ends
analysis, because there is no specied end. Instead, problem solv-
ers can use a history-cued strategy (Sweller et al., 1982) where
they induce the structure of the problem from previously
performed moves and use this structure to generate and test
hypotheses about possible moves for the current state. This
history-cued strategy necessarily includes learning and therefore
could also be seen as a learning strategy.
Thus, according to this strategy approach, specic problem solv-
ing goals trigger the use of a pure problem solving strategy
whereas nonspecic problem solving goals trigger a learning strat-
egy (see also Burns & Vollmeyer, 2002). This difference in strategy
use can explain the goal specicity effect for problem solving goals.
Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004
But since learning goals should always trigger the use of learning
strategies independently from the specicity of the learning goal
the strategy explanation approach suggests that there will be
no goal specicity effect observable when participants are pro-
vided with a learning goal rather than a problem solving goal.
1.2. The cognitive load approach
This approach explains the goal specicity effect by a different
amount of (overall) cognitive load imposed by a specic versus a
nonspecic problem solving goal (Sweller,1988, 1994). When solv-
ing a problem with a specic goal by means-ends analysis, problem
solvers must simultaneously keep in mind the current state, the
goal state, the relation between these two states, the relations be-
tween problem solving operators, and, in the case of sub-goaling,
the stack of sub-goals. Every element, that has to be considered
simultaneously for solving the problem, increases the element
interactivity of that problem, and therefore increases cognitive
load. When solving a problem with a nonspecic goal, however,
there is no pre-dened criterion to be reached in order to perform
the task successfully. Therefore, there is no need to consider the
relation between a current state and a goal state, and there is no
stack of sub-goals to be considered simultaneously. As a conse-
quence, element interactivity and cognitive load are lower for
problems with nonspecic goals compared to problems with spe-
cic goals.
Thus, the difference in element interactivity and resulting cog-
nitive load can explain the goal specicity effect for problem solv-
ing goals. Furthermore, this approach can also be generalized to
learning goals: when pursuing a specic learning goal, learners
must also consider a current mental state, a mental goal state,
the relation between these two states, the relation between differ-
ent learning approaches, and, in the case of sub-goaling, the stack
of sub-goals (Winne & Hadwin, 1998). In contrast, when pursuing a
nonspecic learning goal, the number of elements that must be
considered simultaneously is smaller. Learners may work on the
learning task without being controlled by a specic learning goal
and simply explore what moves are possible within a current envi-
ronmental problem state (Sweller, 1988). There is no need to con-
sider the relation between a current mental state and a pre-dened
mental goal state, because learners must only ensure that they
learn something, but not that they learn exactly what they are sup-
posed to learn. That is, monitoring includes only the evaluation
whether the current mental state has changed somehow by the
learning activities. But learners do not need to evaluate whether
the current mental state has been modied in a pre-dened way.
Therefore, the cognitive load approach suggests that the goal spec-
icity effect is also observable when participants are provided with
learning goals, because specic learning goals should lead to higher
cognitive load than nonspecic learning goals.
Summarizing the two explanation approaches it can be as-
sumed that there are two mechanisms affecting learning outcome
and cognitive load when solving problems with a specic versus a
nonspecic problem solving goal (1) Problem solvers use a prob-
lem solving strategy rather than a learning strategy when pursuing
a specic problem solving goal. Additionally, they are confronted
(2) with a high element interactivity of that task resulting in high
cognitive load. Thus, it is likely to observe a strong goal specicity
effect for specic versus nonspecic problem solving goals. In con-
trast, the two explanation approaches suggest only one mechanism
affecting learning outcome and cognitive load when learners are
provided with a specic versus a nonspecic learning goal, that
is, high cognitive load in the case of a specic learning goal and
low cognitive load in the case of a nonspecic learning goal,
respectively. Thus, we assume the goal specicity effect for specic
versus nonspecic learning goals to be smaller than for problem
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Wirth et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx
solving goals. Furthermore, it can be assumed that learning goals
should result in higher learning outcome than problem solving
goals since both specic and nonspecic learning goals are likely
to trigger the use of a learning strategy. In contrast, specic prob-
lem solving goals are likely to trigger the use of a problem solving
strategy and nonspecic problem solving goals only allow for (but
do not explicitly trigger) the use of a learning strategy.
In order to test the expected difference of the goal specicity ef-
fect for problem solving goals and learning goals we conducted an
experimental study with a 2  2 between-subjects design with two
levels of goal specicity (nonspecic goals versus specic goals) and
two levels of goal type (problem solving goals versus learning
goals). Performance in a knowledge test (used as pre-test and as
post-test) and overall cognitive load were measured as dependent
variables. We expected to nd a statistically signicant interaction
of goal specicity and goal type on both learning outcome and cog-
nitive load indicating a stronger effect of goal specicity for prob-
lem solving goals than for learning goals.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Two hundred and thirty three students of a higher track second-
ary school participated in the study (52% boys and 48% girls; mean
age = 14.5 years, SD = .77). Within their classes students were ran-
domly assigned to one of four experimental groups with
56 6 N 6 61 students per experimental group. There was no statis-
tically signicant difference between groups concerning gender,
v2(3) = 6.640, p = .084.
2.2. Design and materials
The study followed a 2  2 experimental between-subjects de-
sign with goal specicity (nonspecic goals versus specic goals)
and goal type (problem solving goals versus learning goals) as
Fig. 1. Screenshot of the computer-based learning environment (CBLE).
Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004
3
the two experimental factors. Students worked with a com-
puter-based learning environment (CBLE) where they could con-
duct experiments within the physical domain buoyancy in liquids
(Fig. 1). Referring to Klahr and Dunbar (1988) and van Joolingen
and de Jong (1997) the learning environment provided the stu-
dents with an experimental space the science lab on the
left side of the screen and with a hypotheses space a specic
kind of scratch pad on the right side of the screen (cf., van Gog,
Kester, Nievelstein, Giesbers, & Paas, this issue). The computer-
simulated science lab allowed students, in order to conduct an
experiment, to put different cubes into liquids of different den-
sity by drag-and-drop, and to observe the forces affecting the
cubes (represented by arrows) as well as the cubes behavior
(sinking, oating, and ascending). The scratch pad allowed stu-
dents to make notes in terms of constructing a specic kind of
a concept-map. Students were sufciently trained to use this
kind of map before working with the CBLE. Nevertheless, it
turned out in the study that students hardly ever used the
scratch pad although they were trained sufciently. Therefore,
we will not present any data concerning the scratch pad in the
current paper.
The physics domain buoyancy in liquids that students had to ex-
plore by conducting experiments consists of 14 relevant relations
between variables (e.g., The greater the volume of a cube the
greater its buoyancy force). Students in all experimental groups
had the chance to explore all of these 14 relevant relations. In
doing so, students were provided with a set of goals. The number
of goals within each set varied between groups from three (non-
specic goals) to 14 (specic goals). The sets of nonspecic goals
were selected in a way, however, that they addressed all of the
14 relevant relations that were also addressed by each set of spe-
cic goals. While specic goals addressed exactly one relevant rela-
tion nonspecic goals addressed more than one relevant relation.
Thus, the number of relevant relations that students had to con-
sider in order to pursue their goals was kept constant across all
experimental groups.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 J. Wirth et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx
Table 1
Goal examples of the four experimental groups.
Goal specicity
Specic
Goal Problem Throw into a water tank: a cube of that volume that maximizes its buoyancy force
type solving
Learning Find out how the volume of a cube and its buoyancy force are related to each other, and
keep it in mind
The four experimental groups differed in the kind and in the
number of goals (but not in the number of relevant relations ad-
dressed by each set of goals; see Table 1). The specic problem solv-
ing goals group got 14 problem solving goals, each addressing one
of the 14 relevant relations, whereas the specic learning goals
group got 14 learning goals addressing the same relations as the
corresponding goals of the specic problem solving goals group.
The nonspecic problem solving goals group was provided with three
nonspecic problem solving goals, whereas the nonspecic learning
goals group was provided with three nonspecic learning goals
addressing the same relations as the corresponding goals of non-
specic problem solving goals group.
Students knowledge concerning the relevant relations of the
CBLEs content buoyancy in liquids, as the rst dependent variable,
was measured by two multiple-choice tests. One was administered
before students worked with the CBLE. The other one was admin-
istered afterwards. Example items are How does the density of a
body change if only its volume is increased? The density of the
body. . . (. . .increases/. . .decreases/. . .stays the same) or How
does the buoyancy force of a body change if only the density of
the uid is increased? The buoyancy force of the body. . .
(. . .increases/. . .decreases/. . .stays the same). Each item was scored
whether it was answered correct or wrong. As scores we computed
the means over all items resulting in percentage correct scores
ranging from zero to one (13 items each; pre-test: M = .63;
SD = .18; Cronbachs a = .60; post-test: M = .62; SD = .23; Cron-
bachs a = .76). In the means, there is no difference in performances
between pre-test and post-test; a correlation of r = .43 between
pre-test and post-test scores, however, indicates that students
performance has changed differentially from pre-test to post-test.
That is, some students showed gains whereas other students
showed losses from pre-test to post-test. We will return to this
in the results section.
The overall cognitive load, as the second dependent variable,
was measured by a questionnaire administered immediately after
students had nished working with the CBLE and before they got
the knowledge post-test. The questionnaire consisted of eight
items to be answered on a seven-point rating scale. We developed
the items on the basis of conceptions introduced by Braarud
(2001), Hart and Staveland (1988), and Tsang and Velazquez
(1996) in order to take into account the specic mental demands
on working memory that result from the specic requirements of
our CBLE, e.g., processing of textual and visual-spatial information,
or working under time pressure. Example items are How much ef-
fort did you invest to understand the texts of the assignments?
(1 = hardly no effort; . . . 7 = very strong effort), How much effort
did you invest to understand the pictures in the science lab?
(1 = hardly no effort; . . . 7 = very strong effort), or How much
time pressure did you experience when working on your tasks?
(1 = hardly no time pressure; . . . 7 = very strong time pressure).
As indicated by a high internal consistency (Cronbachs a = .84)
and by high item-total correlations (.48 < rit < .63), however, we
were not able to separate different aspects of cognitive load af-
fected by different specic demands of our learning CBLE. There-
fore, we used the mean over all eight items as an indicator for
Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004
Nonspecic
Throw consecutively into a water tank: nine cubes
that all sink
Find out why some cubes sink in water, and keep it in
mind
overall cognitive load. Furthermore, the mean was divided by se-
ven in order to get a scale ranging from zero to one (M = .50;
SD = .21).
In order to take into account individual differences in intelli-
gence we used a standardized intelligence test (scale gural anal-
ogies; Heller, Gaedicke, & Weinlder, 1985; 25 items; M = .75;
SD = .15; Cronbachs a = .71). Note that the scale score was com-
puted as the mean over all items resulting in a range from zero
to one.
2.3. Procedure
The study was conducted, during regular science lessons, in the
computer labs of the participating schools. At the beginning, stu-
dents were provided with an overview over all tests they were sup-
posed to work on, and they were informed that at the end of the
session they would receive a knowledge test on buoyancy in liq-
uids. Thus, students of all experimental groups were implicitly gi-
ven a very general, very nonspecic learning goal. Afterwards, we
administered some additional tests that are of no relevance for
the present paper. Then we administered a questionnaire on inter-
est in physics, and we collected some demographical data from the
participants (10 min). The questionnaires were followed by the
standardized intelligence test (8 min) and the knowledge test
about buoyancy in liquids (pre-test; 10 min). Afterwards, students
started with a computer-based introduction and a training of the
use of the scratch pad for constructing a concept-map (about
15 min). When they were sufciently able to use the scratch pad,
students were introduced to the CBLE on buoyancy in liquids after
a short break. Directly before starting the learning phase, we as-
sessed their actual motivation to work with the CBLE using a short
version of a questionnaire developed by Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, and
Burns (2001). Filling in the questionnaire took about 1 min. Data
about actual motivation are of no relevance for the present paper
and not reported. Afterwards, students had 20 min time to work
in the CBLE. Time was kept constant for all groups, and no student
was allowed to proceed before 20 min were over. We did so in or-
der to prevent any time-on-task effects. Depending on the experi-
mental group students were assigned to, they were provided with
one of four sets of goals within these 20 min. Whenever students
had reached a goal, the CBLE provided them with a new goal to
pursue. After 20 min, students lled in our cognitive load question-
naire (2 min), and afterwards they answered again the questions of
the knowledge test (post-test; 10 min).
3. Results
We expected to nd a goal specicity effect on cognitive load
and on performance in knowledge tests for both, problem solving
goals and learning goals. However, we expected the goal specicity
effect to be smaller for learning goals than for problem solving
goals. In order to increase the statistical sensitivity of the experi-
mental design for being able to detect even small effects (Lipsey,
1990) we decided to reduce the variance of the cognitive load
and the knowledge test performance variables within experimen-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J. Wirth et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx 5

Table 2
Correlations and sample sizes (in brackets) of knowledge tests performance (pre-test a Problem solving goals
and post-test), cognitive load, and intelligence.
0.70
Goal specificity
Knowledge pre- Knowledge post- Cognitive load Specific goals

Performance in knowledge tests

test test Nonspecific goals

(adjusted for intelligence)

Knowledge post- .428 (231) 0.65
test
Cognitive load .147 (225) .145 (225)
Intelligence .258 (230) .338 (232) .194 (224)
0.60
All correlations signicant at a = .05 level.

Table 3 0.55
Descriptives for performance on knowledge tests (pre-test and post-test), cognitive
load, and intelligence of the four experimental groups.

Problem solving goals Learning goals 0.50

Specic Nonspecic Specic Nonspecic Pre-test Post-test

Means and standard deviations (in brackets) Time
Knowledge pre-test .626 (.189) .625 (.166) .632 (.174) .641 (.187)
Knowledge post-test
Cognitive load
.555 (.212)
.523 (.206)
.640
.437
(.231)
(.219)
.661
.592
(.225)
(.168)
.657
.443
(.237)
(.194)
b Learning goals

Intelligence .783 (.113) .745 (.154) .731 (.162) .760 (.176) 0.70

Means and standard deviations (in brackets), adjusted for intelligence

Performance in knowledge tests

Knowledge pre-test .617 (.185) .628 (.166) .638 (.165) .639 (.174)

(adjusted for intelligence)

Knowledge post-test .539 (.205) .644 (.227) .672 (.228) .653 (.204) 0.65
Cognitive load .530 (.203) .435 (.214) .586 (.174) .444 (.181)

0.60

tal groups by controlling them, using linear regression, for intelli-

gence, as both variables showed fairly substantial correlations with
intelligence (Table 2). Table 3 shows both the original as well as the 0.55
adjusted means and standard deviations of all variables.
Goal specificity
Specific goals
3.1. Knowledge test performance 0.50 Nonspecific goals

Fig. 2a shows the adjusted means of knowledge test perfor- Pre-test Post-test

mance of the two groups with problem solving goals. Descriptively,
our results are as expected: the post-test performance of the group
with specic problem solving goals was lower than the respective
performance of the group with nonspecic problem solving goals
(d = 0.486). But as can be seen in Fig. 2a, this difference is due to
a substantial performance reduction from pre-test to post-test in
the specic goals group. The descriptive results are different for
students provided with learning goals (Fig. 2b). In that case, the
post-test performance of the group with specic learning goals
was slightly better than the respective performance of the group
with nonspecic learning goals (d = 0.089). But this effect was
much smaller (and even reversed) than the respective effect for
problem solving goals (Fig. 2a). Both groups with learning goals
showed slightly better performance in the post-test than in the
pre-test (specic goals group: d = 0.171; nonspecic goals group:
d = 0.073). On the other hand, with problem solving goals as shown
in Fig. 2a, only the nonspecic goals group slightly increased its
performance from pre-test to post-test (d = .082).
In order to test statistical signicance of these results, we com-
puted a three-way repeated measures analysis of variance with
time of administration of the knowledge test (pre-test, post-test),
as the within-subjects factor, and goal specicity and goal type,
as the two between-subjects factors. We did not nd a main effect
of time, F(1,226) < 1. There was also no statistically signicant inter-
action of time and goal specicity, F(1,226) = 2.247, MSE = 0.024,
p = .135, g2 = .010, but there was, according to our expectations, a
signicant interaction of time and goal type, F(1,226) = 3.411,
MSE = 0.024, p = .033 (one-tailed), g2 = .015. Students provided
with learning goals showed an increase in test performance (pre-
test: M = .639, SD = .168; post-test: M = .663, SD = .216; d = 0.125)
Time
Fig. 2. (a) Means of performance in knowledge tests of groups with problem solving
goals, adjusted for intelligence. (b) Means of performance in knowledge tests of
groups with learning goals, adjusted for intelligence.
whereas the test performance of students provided with problem
solving goals decreased over time (pre-test: M = .622, SD = .175;
post-test: M = .591, SD = .222; d = 0.157). Additionally the triple
interaction of time, goal specicity, and goal type was signicant,
F(1,226) = 4.331, MSE = .024, p = .039, g2 = .019, indicating that goal
specicity affected the change in test performance over time differ-
ently for groups with problem solving goals and groups with learn-
ing goals (Fig. 2a and b). Whereas we found a clear goal specicity
effect for problem solving goals, for learning goals the respective
effect is much smaller.
3.2. Cognitive load
Fig. 3 shows the adjusted means of cognitive load for all four
experimental groups. Descriptively, we observed the goal specic-
ity effect on cognitive load for both problem solving goals as well
as learning goals (problem solving goals: d = 0.459; learning goals:
d = 0.799).
In order to test statistical signicance of the results, we com-
puted a two-way analysis of variance with cognitive load as the
dependent variable and goal specicity and goal type as the two
between-subjects factors. In line with Fig. 3, we found a main effect
of goal specicity, F(1,224) = 21.036, MSE = 0.038, p < .001, g2 = .087.
Students provided with specic goals experienced higher overall

Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004

6 J. Wirth et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx
0.60
Cognitive load (adjusted for intelligence)
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
Problem solving goals
Goal type
Fig. 3. Means of cognitive load, adjusted for intelligence.
cognitive load than students provided with nonspecic goals.
There was no main effect of goal type on cognitive load,
F(1,224) = 1.584, MSE = .038, p = .210, g2 = .007. Also, the interaction
of goal specicity and goal type was not statistically signicant,
F(1,224) < 1.
4. Discussion
In our study we were able to nd the goal specicity effect of
problem solving goals on both, knowledge test performance and
cognitive load. Students provided with nonspecic problem solv-
ing goals reported lower cognitive load and learned more about
buoyancy in liquids by conducting experiments in a CBLE than stu-
dents provided with specic problem solving goals. Thus, we were
able to ensure that our computer-based learning environment as
well as our knowledge tests and our test for measuring (overall)
cognitive load were of sufcient validity and were appropriate to
detect the goal specicity effect as it is known from the literature.
Relating to previous studies (e.g., Burns and Vollmeyer, 2002; Paas
et al., 2001; Sweller, 1988), our results give further support to the
assumption that the goal specicity effect of problem solving goals
can be generalized over various domains as well as various kinds of
problem solving environments.
However, with problem solving goals, the goal specicity effect
on knowledge test performance is mostly due to a decreased per-
formance of the specic goals group in the post-test. This perfor-
mance reduction from pre-test to post-test in the specic
problem solving goals group might be due to the fact, that the stu-
dents in this group as well as the students in the other three
experimental groups showed a comparably high level of perfor-
mance in the pre-test. Students obviously already possessed suit-
able schemata and rules when starting to conduct the simulated
physics experiments. Thus, learning meant not only to acquire
new schemata and rules but also to modify and extend existing
schemata and rules and to integrate new information into them.
It can be assumed, on the one hand, that pursuing specic problem
solving goals leads to a great number of information that, for learn-
ing, must be integrated into existing schemata and rules. But, on
the other hand, pursuing specic problem solving goals draws
heavily on working memory capacity (e.g., because of using the
capacity demanding means-ends analysis). Integrating information
and restructuring existing schemata also draws heavily on working
memory capacity. If working memory capacity is not sufcient for
both, pursuing problem solving goals and integrating information
Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
into schemata, this might lead to incomplete integration and
incompletely restructured schemata, and, thus, to a decreased per-
formance in the knowledge post-tests.
In line with our hypotheses we found that goal specicity and
goal type interact concerning the change of knowledge test perfor-
mance from pre-test to post-test. The goal specicity effect is a lot
stronger for problem solving goals than for learning goals. The
question remains, however, how this interaction can be explained.
It seems that differences in overall cognitive load between groups
cannot sufciently answer this question since we were not able to
nd the corresponding interaction on overall cognitive load.
Although the specicity of learning goals affected cognitive load
Goal specificity
in the same way as the specicity of problem solving goals, the dif-
Specific goals ference between specic versus nonspecic learning goals obvi-
Nonspecific goals ously had no inuence on changes in knowledge test
Learning goals performance from pre-test to post-test.
The results can be interpreted as follows. On the one hand, goal
specicity affects element interactivity and, therefore, cognitive
load for both, problem solving goals as well as learning goals.
The increased cognitive load associated with increased element
interactivity, due to high goal specicity, does not contribute to
schema acquisition nor rule induction and, therefore, must be con-
sidered as extraneous. On the other hand, goal specicity obviously
is not the only factor affecting cognitive load. Probably, there is at
least one other factor inducing additional cognitive load. And this
other factor seems to differ between problem solving goals and
learning goals.
At this point, the strategy approach to explaining the goal spec-
icity effect on knowledge test performance comes into play. It can
be assumed that students of the specic problem solving goals
group used goal-directed problem solving strategies like, e.g.,
means-ends analysis, whereas students of the other experimental
groups were able to use learning strategies (cf., Burns and Vollmey-
er, 2002). Means-ends analysis is a strategy useful for changing a
learners external environment in a goal-directed and systematic
manner. But since this strategy does not aim at schema acquisition
nor rule induction it must be considered as inducing extraneous
load. Thus, in the specic problem solving goals group, the use of
problem solving strategies could add extraneous load to the extra-
neous load induced by high element interactivity. In contrast,
learning strategies, as for example the history-cued strategy, aim
at changing a learners internal mental state, that is, they aim at
schema acquisition or rule induction. Therefore, they also induce
additional cognitive load, but this kind of cognitive load seems to
be germane load. Assuming different kinds of cognitive load asso-
ciated with either problem solving strategies or learning strategies
could explain why both groups with learning goals (specic as well
as nonspecic learning goals) as well as the nonspecic problem
solving goals group showed better performance on the knowledge
post-test than the specic problem solving goals group. It could be
assumed that only the specic problem solving goals group used
problem solving strategies inducing additional extraneous load
and therefore reducing germane load whereas the other three
groups used learning strategies and therefore did not experience
increased extraneous load. Probably, the overall cognitive load of
groups with learning goals as well as the group with nonspecic
problem solving goals had a greater portion of germane load in-
cluded as it can be assumed for the cognitive load of the group with
specic problem solving goals.
Using the strategy approach for explaining our results is spec-
ulative as it relies on two assumptions that cannot be proved by
the data of the presented study. First, it must be assumed that
the overall cognitive load of the groups using learning strategies
(i.e., the groups with specic or nonspecic learning goals as well
as the group with nonspecic problem solving goals) did not ex-
ceed the limits of working memory whereas the overall cognitive
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Wirth et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2009) xxxxxx
load of the specic problem solving goal group, using problem
solving strategies, exceeded working memory capacity and, thus,
reduced germane load. Second, it must be assumed that a spe-
cic problem solving goal led to the use of a problem solving
strategy whereas the other groups used a learning strategy.
Unfortunately, we have no behavioral or other data that allow
us to test this hypothesis.
Interpreting the results of the present study in terms of the
strategy approach for explaining the goal specicity effect has
not only theoretical, but also practical implications for the design
of inquiry learning environments and instructions that are to foster
students learning, beyond problem solving only. Although effect
sizes are only small, our results can be taken as indicating that
one of the relevant questions to be asked when designing instruc-
tions is the question whether the instruction directs students to
pursue a learning goal rather than a problem solving goal and
therefore allows students to use a learning strategy rather than a
problem solving strategy. Learners must be provided with appro-
priate criteria so that they are able to set appropriate goals and
sub-goals and monitor their learning process accordingly. Appro-
priate criteria aim at changing the learners internal mental state
in long-term memory that is a change of a learners knowledge
rather than changing a learners external environment. But
designers and teachers also have to be aware of the fact that
although specicity of learning goals seems to affect learning out-
come only weakly it has a substantial effect on cognitive load.
Therefore, it can be advised to use nonspecic learning goals rather
than specic learning goals since nonspecic learning goals impose
lower overall cognitive load.
Acknowledgements
The present publication is based on a research project funded
by the German Research Foundation (DFG; LE 645/8-1 and -2).
We thank Lars Bollen and Andreas Harrer from Duisburg-Essen
University, Duisburg, Germany, for their help with designing our
computer-based learning environment.
References
Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1994). Demands imposed on primary-school
students by geometric models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19,
108117.
Braarud, P. O. (2001). Subjective task complexity and subjective workload: Criterion
validity for complex team tasks. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5,
261273.
Please cite this article in press as: Wirth, J., et al. The impact of goal specicity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load.
Computers in Human Behavior (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004
7
Burns, B. D., & Vollmeyer, R. (2002). Goal specicity effects on hypothesis testing in
problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 241261.
Drner, D., & Wearing, A. J. (1995). Complex problem solving: Toward a (computer
simulated) theory. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving:
The European perspective (pp. 6599). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index):
Results of empirical and theoretical research. In N. Meshkati & P. A. Hancock
(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139183). Oxford, England: North-Holland.
Heller, K., Gaedicke, A.-K., & Weinlder, H. (1985). Kognitiver Fhigkeits-Test KFT 4
13 [Cognitive ability test grade 413]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientic reasoning.
Cognitive Science, 12, 148.
Klauer, K. J. (1988). Teaching for learning-to-learn: A critical appraisal with some
proposals. Instructional Science, 17, 351367.
Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Kdinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in
microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23, 305336.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics
problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272284.
Paas, F., Camp, G., & Rikers, R. (2001). Instructional compensation for age-related
cognitive declines: Effects of goal specicity in maze learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 181186.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur
Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern-und Leistungssituationen [FAM: A
questionnaire assessing actual motivation in learning and test situations].
Diagnostica, 47, 5766.
Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (this issue). The
worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers
in Human Behavior, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.011.
Sweller, J. (1983). Control mechanisms in problem solving. Memory and Cognition,
11, 3240.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12, 257285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difculty, and instructional
design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295312.
Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specicity on means-ends analysis
and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 8, 463474.
Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Howe, W. (1982). Consequences of history-cued and
means-end strategies in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 95,
455483.
Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in
mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112,
639661.
Tsang, P. S., & Velazquez, V. L. (1996). Diagnosticity and multidimensional
subjective workload ratings. Ergonomics, 39, 358381.
van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (this issue). Uncovering
cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load
research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2008.12.021.
van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of
scientic discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25, 307346.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J.
Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory
and practice (pp. 277304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.